So far one of the biggest deficiencies of IronChariots is the lack of consistency in both organizational layout across similar pages, and an unstructured approach to the information on those individual pages, that may not be accessible to people who are not as well read in formal logic, not as well read on scientific/historic facts, or perhaps don't speak English as a primary language.

+

So far one of the biggest deficiencies of Iron Chariots is the lack of consistency in both organizational layout across similar pages, and an unstructured approach to the information on those individual pages, that may not be accessible to people who are not as well read in formal logic, not as well read on scientific/historic facts, or perhaps don't speak English as a primary language.

−

This page is intended as a possible template to streamline the information and standardize the layout and format of pages on IronChariots related to logical arguments for the existence of god. A Very brief description of the argument goes here.

+

−

==History of Argument==

+

This page is intended as a possible template to streamline the information and standardize the layout and format of pages on Iron Chariots related to logical arguments for the existence of god. A Very brief description of the argument goes here.

−

If applicable this section of the page would give a more in depth description of the argument. What it the argument. Where did it originate. When is the first documented case of the argument being used. Who have been its major proponents throughout the ages. Is this argument still being used today? or is it one of those arguments that has made AiG's list of arguments theists shouldn't use.

+

+

==History of argument==

+

If applicable this section of the page would give a more in depth description of the argument. What is the argument? Where did it originate? When is the first documented case of the argument being used? Who have been its major proponents throughout the ages? Is this argument still being used today, or is it one of those arguments that has made AiG's list of arguments theists shouldn't use?

==Argument==

==Argument==

Line 9:

Line 10:

The first version of the argument may be in the form of a quote from a famous apologist or proponent of the particular argument.

The first version of the argument may be in the form of a quote from a famous apologist or proponent of the particular argument.

−

''Title of source material'':

+

''Title of source material'':<!-- note existence of Template:Quote-source and Template:Quote-source2 (not saying I necessarily like the formatting of these templates...) -->

−

{{Quote|This is obviously where the body of the quote would go. It would more or less be a copy paste from the source material. - Murphy c.2009}}

+

{{Quote|This is obviously where the body of the quote would go. It would more or less be a copy paste from the source material. — Murphy c.2009}}

===Version 2===

===Version 2===

Line 33:

Line 34:

===Version 3===

===Version 3===

−

This version of the argument bay be in the form of a simplified plain English syllogism of version 2. There are often many versions of an argument, differing in both the number of steps and complexity of those steps, but most of them can be broken down to 2-3 premises and a conclusion which adequately covers the core argument.

+

This version of the argument bay be in the form of a simplified plain English syllogism of version 2. There are often many versions of an argument, differing in both the number of steps and complexity of those steps, but most of them can be broken down to 2–3 premises and a conclusion which adequately covers the core argument.

::p1. First premise

::p1. First premise

Line 40:

Line 41:

::c1. Conclusion

::c1. Conclusion

−

==Counter Arguments==

+

==Counter arguments==

−

===False Premise 1===

+

===False premise 1===

−

This counter argument p2.b(version 2) may be an unproven assertion. For example, a statement about gods character that has no evidence to back it up, or any way of cross checking. The details of why it is an unproven assertion should be laid out in depth in this section. It is probably also worth mentioning that it would be best for clarity and organizations sake to have the counter arguments running in the same step by step order as the actual syllogism.

+

This counter argument p2.b(version 2) may be an unproven assertion. For example, a statement about God's character that has no evidence to back it up, or any way of cross-checking. The details of why it is an unproven assertion should be laid out in depth in this section. It is probably also worth mentioning that it would be best for clarity and organization sake to have the counter arguments running in the same step-by-step order as the actual syllogism.

−

===False Premise 2===

+

===False premise 2===

−

This counter argument p3.(version 3/simplified version) may be a premise that is just completely wrong and in complete conflict with our current understanding of science. Such as a ray comfort statement that males and females had to some how asexually evolve perfectly side by side before they developed the ability to sexually reproduce. The details of why this premise is incorrect should be laid out in depth in this section. Facts, figures, reasons, references, etc.

+

This counter argument p3.(version 3/simplified version) may be a premise that is just completely wrong and in complete conflict with our current understanding of science. Such as a Ray Comfort statement that males and females had to somehow asexually evolve perfectly side by side before they developed the ability to sexually reproduce. The details of why this premise is incorrect should be laid out in depth in this section. Facts, figures, reasons, references, etc.

−

===Logical Error 1===

+

===Logical error 1===

−

This logical flaw may be a case of fallacy of reification. For example, p4 may state that the apple in my had is conceptual because the apple in my head is conceptual. Although it is in one of the premises, it is more a problem of logical validity rather than soundness.

+

This logical flaw may be a case of fallacy of reification. For example, p4 may state that the apple in my hand is conceptual because the apple in my head is conceptual. Although it is in one of the premises, it is more a problem of logical validity rather than soundness.

−

===Logical Error 2===

+

===Logical error 2===

−

This flaw may be a case of special pleading. Perhaps the conclusion is in conflict with one of the premises. Such as the conclusion of the first cause argument that god has no first cause, despite the first premise being that everything has a cause.

+

This flaw may be a case of special pleading. Perhaps the conclusion is in conflict with one of the premises. Such as the conclusion of the first cause argument that God has no first cause, despite the first premise being that everything has a cause.

−

==Other Counter Arguments==

+

==Other counter arguments==

−

* Some arguments for god have a single fairly blatant error and are fairly simple to dismiss.

+

* Some arguments for God have a single fairly blatant error and are fairly simple to dismiss.

−

* Others such as the TAG argument are rather complicated and fractal flawed.

+

* Others such as the TAG argument are rather complicated and fractally flawed.

−

* More complicated arguments may have many errors, not all of which justify having there own section.

+

* More complicated arguments may have many errors, not all of which justify having their own section.

* Those additional counter claims should be placed in this section

* Those additional counter claims should be placed in this section

==Links==

==Links==

−

===See Also===

+

===See also===

* This may be arguments that are related.

* This may be arguments that are related.

* For instance, if this were the cosmological argument, Kalam would be directly related.

* For instance, if this were the cosmological argument, Kalam would be directly related.

* If this were the cosmological argument, first cause would also be peripherally related.

* If this were the cosmological argument, first cause would also be peripherally related.

−

===External Links===

+

===External links===

* Theist website that supports the argument

* Theist website that supports the argument

* Atheist website that also debunks argument

* Atheist website that also debunks argument

−

* Perhaps a relevant youtube debate

+

* Perhaps a relevant YouTube debate

−

* Further reading on the argument, maybe even if its wikipedia

+

* Further reading on the argument, maybe even if its Wikipedia<!-- note that Wikipedia articles are often prominently linked to at the top of our articles -->

* Are there any peripherally related topics to the argument that need explaining even if its just a link to wikipedia

+

* Are there any peripherally related topics to the argument that need explaining even if its just a link to Wikipedia?<!-- why the "just"? [g] -->

Revision as of 02:26, 12 December 2009

So far one of the biggest deficiencies of Iron Chariots is the lack of consistency in both organizational layout across similar pages, and an unstructured approach to the information on those individual pages, that may not be accessible to people who are not as well read in formal logic, not as well read on scientific/historic facts, or perhaps don't speak English as a primary language.

This page is intended as a possible template to streamline the information and standardize the layout and format of pages on Iron Chariots related to logical arguments for the existence of god. A Very brief description of the argument goes here.

History of argument

If applicable this section of the page would give a more in depth description of the argument. What is the argument? Where did it originate? When is the first documented case of the argument being used? Who have been its major proponents throughout the ages? Is this argument still being used today, or is it one of those arguments that has made AiG's list of arguments theists shouldn't use?

Argument

Version 1

The first version of the argument may be in the form of a quote from a famous apologist or proponent of the particular argument.

Title of source material:

"This is obviously where the body of the quote would go. It would more or less be a copy paste from the source material. — Murphy c.2009"

Version 2

This version of the argument may be in the form of an in depth or expanded syllogism which more or less covers all the basic premises, logical steps and conclusions.

p1. First premise

p2. Second premise

a. Second premise expanded point one

b. Second premise expanded point two

p3. Third premise

a. Third premise expanded point one

b. Third premise expanded point two

p4. Forth premise

p5. Fifth premise

a. Fifth premise expanded one

b. Fifth premise expanded two

c. Fifth premise expanded three

c1. First conclusion

c2. Second conclusion

a. Additional notes about second conclusion

b. More additional notes about second conclusion

Version 3

This version of the argument bay be in the form of a simplified plain English syllogism of version 2. There are often many versions of an argument, differing in both the number of steps and complexity of those steps, but most of them can be broken down to 2–3 premises and a conclusion which adequately covers the core argument.

p1. First premise

p2. Second premise

p3. Third premise

c1. Conclusion

Counter arguments

False premise 1

This counter argument p2.b(version 2) may be an unproven assertion. For example, a statement about God's character that has no evidence to back it up, or any way of cross-checking. The details of why it is an unproven assertion should be laid out in depth in this section. It is probably also worth mentioning that it would be best for clarity and organization sake to have the counter arguments running in the same step-by-step order as the actual syllogism.

False premise 2

This counter argument p3.(version 3/simplified version) may be a premise that is just completely wrong and in complete conflict with our current understanding of science. Such as a Ray Comfort statement that males and females had to somehow asexually evolve perfectly side by side before they developed the ability to sexually reproduce. The details of why this premise is incorrect should be laid out in depth in this section. Facts, figures, reasons, references, etc.

Logical error 1

This logical flaw may be a case of fallacy of reification. For example, p4 may state that the apple in my hand is conceptual because the apple in my head is conceptual. Although it is in one of the premises, it is more a problem of logical validity rather than soundness.

Logical error 2

This flaw may be a case of special pleading. Perhaps the conclusion is in conflict with one of the premises. Such as the conclusion of the first cause argument that God has no first cause, despite the first premise being that everything has a cause.

Other counter arguments

Some arguments for God have a single fairly blatant error and are fairly simple to dismiss.

Others such as the TAG argument are rather complicated and fractally flawed.

More complicated arguments may have many errors, not all of which justify having their own section.

Those additional counter claims should be placed in this section

Links

See also

This may be arguments that are related.

For instance, if this were the cosmological argument, Kalam would be directly related.

If this were the cosmological argument, first cause would also be peripherally related.